Why are there so many atheists on a Christian site?

[HitchSlap]

If religion is the opiate of the people, it's not the religion of Jesus of Nazereth.

Given the fact that it's quite possible that Jesus never existed, you're quite right.

 

[HitchSlap]

You can't even prove yourself in words adequate to distinguish you in a line up, so it's not possible to provide proof of the God we know. We envite you to find him on your own, he lives within you.

Is this Christianese?

 

[Colter]

There is no such things as atheists conclude something for a unified specific reasons. Very few atheists even conclude the things you claim they do (that is known as strong atheism or gnostic atheism). Athiems is a lack of belief, some atheist has hard to believe the claim a god exists. Some atheists simply do not care at all. It does not matter for them weather god exists or not. Many atheists see no good reason, whatever those might be, for believing that a god exists. Some atheist are angry with the god they used to believe in. Some atheist has no reason at all to be atheist, they are atheist on faith, or gut feelings. Reasons, or lack of reasons, atheists have for not having faith varies wildly between atheists. So why do you generalize something that cannot be generalized? For instance, how does your claim apply to a half billion Buddhist which are atheist? How does you claim apply to atheists that believe in cosmic forces, ghost or spirits, or an eternal afterlife?

It's a generality that resurfaced today on this thread, some Atheist have a concept of God that they compare with the reality of life on this world. They say things like, if there was a God he wouldn't allow children to die from cancer and other such accidents of time.

 

[Colter]

Is this Christianese?

Perhaps I have overestimated your intelligence

Given the fact that it's quite possible that Jesus never existed, you're quite right.

That's no fact at all, Just wishful ignorance. Jesus is present now with us, his religion can be lived.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's a generality that resurfaced today on this thread, some Atheist have a concept of God that they compare with the reality of life on this world. They say things like, if there was a God he wouldn't allow children to die from cancer and other such accidents of time.

Hey, he's your god/s.

 

[keith99]

How did the government suppress the cancer cures?

Don't you know? Copper bracelets cure cancer!

I've known too many physicians in my life to believe any conspiracy to cover up cures. Physicians and their families, which of course includes their kids, get sick like the rest of us. How many people do you know who would cover up a cancer cure when their child had cancer? Not very many.

 

[Colter]

 

[HitchSlap]

Vino, no problemo. Now cancer, that's a whole other ball of wax.

 

[In situ]

And yet again, another failure to address the actual question I had. The only thing I saw was goalpost shifting. Anyway....

It's a generality that resurfaced today on this thread, some Atheist have a

I apreciat you wrote "some atheist" and did not made it a general rule. However this is somehow negated with you usage of the expression "It's a generality" just before. What did you actually meant to say?

a concept of God that they compare with the reality of life on this world.

I see, we must ignore reality in order to be able to believe, shall we not?

Why don't you just tell me to hit myself with something hard in the head, then I will be able to start to believe?

They say things like, if there was a God he wouldn't allow children to die from cancer and other such accidents of time.

I doubt they say that unless they are dumb since we can give example of gods that "allows" similar things to happen (e.g. they might not have the power to prevent it or they simply don't care). In other words nothing says a god cannot be like this. Would you worships a god that could prevent it but did not? I doubt you would. However, what I think these persons actually have an objecting against is the mixing of words such as "Loving" and "God" with "has all the power". These concepts simply does not match well with the reality we live in. Nor does these concept goes well with the mythological character known as God in the Bible.

But what if the god threatens to torture you forever if you don't submit and worship him/her? Would that not change the rules of the game? Maybe then it is better to worship that god for pure egoistical purposes and then make up stories (read: use apologetics) to compensate for the cognitive dissonance it causes to worship a malicious god. Your picture of God may be a Loving god, but there is no way you can convince me that the god you believe in and know as God is the Christian God, i.e. I am saying you are subject to a self-delusion.

 

[Eudaimonist]

They are seeking something more, deep down they know that the world cannot just create itself there has to be a creator.

Deep down, you know that God cannot just create himself.

I don't think that the universe "created itself". That is a complete straw man of my views on the matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[oi_antz]

OK, so I have just spent lots of time reading last 6 pages since last night. I will race through a response, then I have a whole day to do, then I will check again last night. I feel bad about last night, it was happening very fast without much consideration.

Let me try to understand this: on the one hand there is OI, who claims that Jesus wants to save me / be my friend / whatever. On the other hand there is you, who states that Jesus / God alone can achive that... nothing I do will ever suffice. And on the third hand there is me, who still isn't saved / friend of Jesus.

So either God does not want to be my friend / save me / open the door... or else he would have... or God does want to do that, and it is me not opening.

Is the Jesus that you both claim to know the same? Do you both love the truth? With two positions this diametrelly opposed, how can you both have the truth?

Thank you, I have been looking for an example of this. I will keep this on hand. Just the other day I mentioned how apparent inconsistencies really aren't saying inconsistent things, they are saying different things. You will find that Gill and I do agree, but you think at this time that we don't. I was not able to put my finger on an example of this when I needed to a few weeks back.

Except we aren't talking about fiction. If you are correct, we are talking about the eternal fate of every soul ever created. Some souls have been created only to be damned to Hell forever. That isn't merely "bad," it's cruel. On this view we are nothing more than mere playthings.

Please provide evidence of this intention, I don't think it is a scriptural teaching.

My point was that OI is trying to make you believe that there is something you need to do in order be saved.

This is not true.

Now, when some Christians are presented with someone who used to be a Christian and they left the faith, this is baffling to them, because they just can't see how someone else could not feel as they do. It is also a defense mechanism, where they need to insinuate that the other person didn't do something right, or maybe they were never a true Christians, because it makes OI feel better about his own position.

This is not true. I do understand, I am attempting to identify and categorise the cause of the failure.

.
You come closer to the truth by question your beliefs, not trying to confirm them. It works according to the the principle of falsification:

The question is rather why you are here? Are you here to confirm your own beliefs or to challenge them?



Would you care to explain what an atheist can proselytize, and why an atheist would like to spread the "happy words" of atheism, whatever that is?

Just letting you know I have been using the like button. I wanted to like this post, up to this point. I chose not to like it because of what followed.

The Trinity is one of the most difficult things to understand or even explain. Throughout the entire Bible, God had revealed Himself in three distinct 'persons' as related to the way God interacted with people. These three persons (revelations) are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each existing since the dawn of creation. This truth can be extremely difficult for us mere humans to fully understand without understanding who God is. The way in which He has revealed Himself can be found in both the Old and New Testament. The most notable instance is where John the Baptist baptized Jesus, the Son, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him from Heaven. Then God the Father said “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3: 16-17)

Let it be understood that the Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. The Father who created us chooses who will be saved; our Savior the Son redeems us; and the Holy Spirit seals us in His holy power.

Can you please describe what you mean as a "person" in this?

In order to trust Jesus words you must first trust mans word that the word of the bible is Jesus words.

Yes, and to test every man's words to see if it is true. That is what I do.

Depends what your goal is.

If the goal is to solidify your current bias, having bias to do the same will help you towards your goal.

If the goal is to validate claims and or beliefs in regards to reality, bias would not be what you should be shooting for.

.. So, what do you make of it? You determined it is biased. Do you think it is a good thing?

Well, I am an atheist, I admitted to that for the last... 30 years or more, and I haven't encountered anything that changed that. Again, I can only state that obviously you have never been an atheist like me.

That is correct. I told you that too.

I have often seen believers find something that gave their already existing belief new fervor... up to the point where they completely denied even having been a believer previously. But I hope you can see how such an experience is unlikely to happen to a real unbeliever.

I apologize if that may offend you: but I just find it astonishing how believers can exaggerate the smallest things into "divine truth". I have read the Bible multiple times, and I have never assumed that it was "all wrong". Yet all I have found in this book were very human, very mundane "truths". Why this would anyone lead to believe that it contains anything "divine" is beyond me.

I did. I was describing that I had come to believe it is all wrong. I don't know why you have taken this personally. I find the divinity is God, who will speak to us if we care to listen. It so happened that I started listening to what He was telling me as I read the bible. Truth is found in places outside of the bible too.

That might be the difference between us. I don't "desire to sin". I just don't believe in deities.

I would be surprised if we would agree to this at the end of that investigation.

As I do not even know how to "open the door to Him"... and you won't tell me... I doubt that I will feel anything. Though even considering this... I don't see why I would feel ashamed. The only reason to feel shame is when you already buy into all this sin / fall / evil concept. I don't. So why would I feel ashamed?

I have answered to Archaeopteryx in post #639, which might be useful. Please let me know if it helps or not, and why.

So when you accelerate, and the car won't move, you assume - no! Assert! - that it is because it is not in gear.

You have excluded any other options.

No, you have assumed this. You are committing association fallacy.

And in contrast to your suggestes "reliable test"... here you can check whether you followed the rules of the test correctly. You don't have to look at "car not moving" to deduced "car not in gear"... you can check the gear.

Do you see the difference? And do you see why we reject your test as "reliable"?

No, I see a false cause here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You can't even prove yourself in words adequate to distinguish yourself from others in a line up, so it's not possible to provide proof of the God we know. We envite you to find him on your own, he lives within you.

I think you, Colter, have decided to come here to try to persuade yourself from the atheistic beliefs deep inside yourself. Deep down, you know there's no god or "spirituality"...so you come here to try to convince atheists as a means of convincing yourself.

 

[bhsmte]

This is not true. I do understand, I am attempting to identify and categorise the cause of the failure.



Why would you assume there is failure involved, if someone comes to a different conclusion than you?

 

[In situ]

Perhaps I have overestimated your intelligence

When arguments fails. Insult!

 

[bhsmte]

When arguments fails. Insult!

That's his MO.

 

[In situ]

I've known too many physicians in my life to believe any conspiracy to cover up cures. Physicians and their families, which of course includes their kids, get sick like the rest of us. How many people do you know who would cover up a cancer cure when their child had cancer? Not very many.

Frankly what that person wrote is an insult towards all the dedicated medical researches that tries to understand the pathology of cancers and find cures for it.

 

[Joshua260]

You seem to have difficulty following. I have already made clear that it is a problem for the way in which Christians characterise God (i.e., as omnipotent and omnibenevolent). Christians either have to reconcile this or otherwise abandon one (or both) of the omni- claims. Again, it bears repeating, the argument relates to a particular concept of God. If you present a definition that is contradictory, then in showing you the contradiction we have already meet the burden of proof. That's all that is required of us. What you do then, whether you attempt to remove the contradiction or abandon the definition altogether, is up to you.

No. I'm following just fine, thank you. It is you that is not understanding my point. Christian's define our God as one who is all-powerful and all-loving. That is the God we are talking about and no other. If you argue that that specific God is not compatible with the existence of evil, then you are saying that the God we preach does not exist. So you are making an assertive claim that the God we preach does not exist and are no longer just claiming to hold to a passive "lack of belief".

 

[In situ]

They also can fend him off with iron chariots.

Please, don't mention the iron chariots! Nobody will believe God is omnipotent after they read that in the Bible...

 

[In situ]

Christian's define our God as one who is all-powerful ...

Except that the Christan God cannot beat iron chariots...

That is the God we are talking about and no other.

Hence the God we talk about is logical impossible to exists. Not saying such God cannot exists, just saying you just defined God as being inconsistent (e.g. all-power full but can still be beaten by human made iron chariots...)

If you argue that that specific God is not compatible with the existence of evil

Since you defined God as being inconsistent we can actually expect your God to be malicious even thou your God claims not to lie and be all-Loving (e.g. drown the entire human population on Earth except for a handful God favor at the moment or simply set up a trap for all humankind such as they all are accused for high treason even if they had no part of it and then torture them for eternity for that) .

then you are saying that the God we preach does not exist.

This smells as a non sequitur to me. Or do you have problem in believing in what you say yourself? Why then project your belief onto other, why not just say it out loud instead - admit the fact that you actually don't believe in the very own God you talk about. Come join the atheists - we got cookies!

 

[Bex.]

Can you please describe what you think it is about Christianity that makes it objectively unbelievable? (I accept it is readily subjectively believable, and appears designed that way).

Well, it's a pretty long list. You could start at the Book of Genesis, but of course there's the main tenets of the belief system too; virgin birth and resurrection. I'm really not looking to discuss or debate it with you, but they're some of the more glaringly obvious ones that come to mind.